[Jenn]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 28 Ian, 00:35, Jenn wrote:
In article
,



RapidRonnie wrote:
On Jan 27, 7:46 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 27 Ian, 20:30, Bret Ludwig wrote:

Since I have never advocated "white supremacy"

HUH!!!???!!!

I don't think Bret is a white supremacist. I think he IS a white
separatist, or at least a white nationalist. He certainly is a racist
by the standards commonly promoted today.

That said, I think a person has a right to be a racist, provided he
does not infringe on the rights of members of groups he personally
does not like.

I agree.

The same is true of people who disapprove of Catholics,
Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals. Their prejudices won't be corrected by
laws: what will happen is they will be made covert.

"Hate crime" laws are dangerous because they criminalize a belief,
not an action,

We do that all the time, of course. Was a murder a "crime of passion"
or was it premeditated? Makes a difference in the charge and the
penalty.

and once one belief is a crime, any belief-or lack
thereof- can be made a crime. Don't believe in transubstantiation, the
virgin birth, or the necessity of burning witches before they can
deprive the community's men of their privy members? Die for heresy!
That was exactly what happened 300+ years ago.

But a hate crime has a crime. You aren't charged with the hate. You're
charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. We can
debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.

I just ran into this:
it is partly about hate crimes and thought crimes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...459776273/1013

BTW, Hentoff is a devout civil liberterian, so try to
get past any prejudice against the the Times
years ago, he appeared in the Washington Post
He is syndicated, and appears in many liberal newspapers.
You may also know him as a noted jazz critic.

I don't have time to read every word at this moment, but what I read can
be answered again by what I wrote above. It's not thought crime,
because having the thought is not criminal. Nor do I believe that
speech should be restricted. The point is that when a perp commits a
crime due to harm or intimidate a GROUP, the perp is a danger to a
GROUP, i.e. more than one individual, hence the enhanced penalties.